Marvelous Possibilities

by Brandon

Marvel's announcement that they own Marvelman at the San Diego Comic Con in late July 2009 was a welcome surprise for many fans. Why? Because Marvelman has been in legal purgatory for many, many years. That is the Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman version. Though it's still not clear whether that paramount work or not remains under Marvel's publishing purview or not, it is clear that Marvel can does plan on publishing new Marvelman material. I can just see the line queuing up outside Joe Quesada's office in New York with writers chomping at his heels to get a chance to write this character. But who are these writers?

I submit to you my humble list of writers who I think should, could, and probably would tackle Marvel's newly minted Marvelman.


Neil Gaiman
Neil Gaiman comes to mind immediately. I think that it is highly probable that Marvel will get Gaiman for an arc or two, maybe even a miniseries. They wouldn't get him for longer, but he's been involved in this whole legal process for a while. He also wrote Marvel's 1602 in the hopes of funding said legal battle. It would have been fruitless of him to have spent such time and effort in this process to not get a shot at writing Marvelman in any form. It would be great if he could continue and finish the story he started, but it would also be awesome if he did anything with the material. I think Marvel would at least give him the initial stab at writing Marvelman, perhaps by launching with a miniseries.They have a good working relationship that I don't see hindering Gaiman's inclusion.
Vegas Odds: Marvel publishing books with an "X" on the front cover.

Mark Millar
Though he's pretty busy these days, Mark Millar can bring a crowd to pretty much anything. I think Millar could do a good job with the Marvelman character, but he has to realize sensationalizing this character just doesn't seem right. He has a penchant to make things be a bit too dramatic. Millar can definitely bring pizazz, for better or worse, when it comes to writing comic books. He's a staple around Marvel and one of two jewels (along with Bendis) in modern Marvel's crown.
Vegas Odds: Ultimate Captain America insults France again.

Grant Morrison
Wishful thinking on my part, but damn it could be cool to see Grant Morrison on this title. However, Morrison seems to be content at Dc doing whatever the hell it is he is doing this month. I don't think Marvel would give Morrison the total freedom to be as deliciously weird as he could be with Marvelman.
Vegas Odds: Final Crisis becoming readable.


Brian Michael Bendis
Bendis would be the safe bet for Marvel since he's kind of their "go to guy" for all things big, but I doubt anything of interest would happen due to his allergy to adding immediacy to his comics. He's a good writer, but I just don't think he gets characters like this. Like I said of Millar, he's a staple of modern Marvel. Chances are he gets a crack at this character, but that's only after Gaiman passes on the job or moves on after completion of his story.
Vegas Odds: Already writing 83% of Marvel books.

Jeph Loeb
Oy. Marvel's been giving this guy a ton of work lately. I'm only familiar with the Ultimatum side of the equation, but man, that book sucks badly. Yet... Marvel seem to be very keen on him now. If you read anything coming out from the house of ideas, they just love this guy! I don't even think that's P.R. They seem to be genuinely pleased with his current output even though it's late and many fans deride it as being on par with watching a Michael Bay movie. But he sales comic books.
Vegas Odds: Blob eating Wasp's guts out with chocolate syrup on top. And sprinkles!

Mike Carey
Carey is kind of a pick from left field on this property, but he's a solid writer. He's proven himself with numerous titles, but may be too busy for a turn at Marvelman between X-Men: Legacy and The Unwritten. However, his style seems like it would fit in perfectly with at least the Moore and Gaiman run.
Vegas Odds: Emma Frost starts wearing sensible, frumpish clothes.


Brian K. Vaughn
Vaughn is another "out there" pick since he seems to be more on the way out of the comic book medium in lieu of television and movies. However, with the recent announcement that he would not be on this season of Lost, Vaughn might have some free time in the future to pursue a comic book comeback. This probably would never happen, but I would love to see more from Vaughn and this would be a great chance for a double return; Marvelman's back, and so is Brian K. Vaughn.
Vegas Odds: Y the Last Man movie shot as a porn.

Matt Fraction
Matt Fraction is another guy who is getting a ton of work at Marvel these days. His work at Marvel thus far has been good, but not great. I just don't think Fraction has enough clout in the industry yet to pull off an assignment like this. His rise to prominence seems too fast. There's been absolutely nothing in his previous work that I think would even put him in the same league as Alan Moore or Ne4il Gaiman. I think he could pull the Marvel fans in, but that's pretty much the extent of his drawing power. Yet... hes gotten some pretty high profile assignments as of late. Matt Fraction is someone to watch in all of this.
Vegas Odds: Spider-Man appearing by issue three.

Alan Moore
I know. Yeah, right. This would probably never happen, but damn it would sweet, wouldn't it. Alan Moore doesn't strike me as someone who revisits the past much if ever, and Marvelman seems like the distant past for him.
Vegas Odds: Quasar becomes first book in years to sell over a million units.
Read more!

A Week of Watching THE WATCHMEN! Day Five

by Doug Smith


Welcome back! It’s the fifth and final day of the Bad Genious gang’s dissection of the Watchmen movie. We’ve got lots of ground to cover today, as we talk about everything from the film’s use of music, to a game of “What If?” with the directors who were attached to the film over the years, to a final discussion of Dr. Manhattan’s …. ummmm…. weapon of mass destruction.


So, you know the drill by now….SPOILER WARNINGS ON!


Let’s start today with a last-minute review from the Professor of Panelology. Hit it, Brandon!

Brandon: Okay… I finally saw the film and I can now participate in everyone’s conversation they had a week ago. If Dr. Manhattan was right about time, it shouldn’t matter. My thoughts…

- Damn, that was impressive.

- The opening sequence was killer.



- I believe just about everything worked for me. I thought this was a superior comic book adaptation film. I thought it was even better than Dark Knight.

- The change in the ending was much more believable than that of the comic itself. Much like the movie adaptation of Stephen King’s The Mist, the film version of Watchmen paid homage to the book and improved upon it by altering the ending. The Dr. Manhattan plot definitely looks better on screen than a giant squid would.

- The cast was perfect, even Ozymandias. In the initial photos release, I thought he looked too baby-faced. Hell, I thought everything looked too bright and colorful in those shots. But everything turned out well.

- I liked the fact the pirate ship stuff wasn’t in the movie. That was always my least favorite part of the comic.

- I dug the soundtrack. There wasn’t anything too adventuresome on it, but it wasn’t distracting or totally obvious.

Rory: Some of the musical choices were just awkward and distracting from the story.

Ye Olde Editor: At this point, I threw a couple of pillows on the table and told Rory and Brandon to settle it “Cinemax After Dark”-style, but they wouldn’t bite.

And now, back to Rory!

Rory: One of the distracting choices was “99 Luftballoons”. The other time it bothered me was when "Everybody Wants To Rule The World" was playing softly during Veidt's assassination. I kept thinking "Is that Tears for Fears? No, wait, maybe, YES!", and missing the dialogue.

Tim: Boy do they use a LOT of classic tunes in the soundtrack. Hendrix's version of “All Along the Watchtower”. “The Times they are a Changing”. The licensing rights for that alone...

Dan: The music was a mixed bag. It worked wonderfully in some places, was over the top in others and some was just out of left field.

Doug: I thought the “Hallelujah” scene was terrible. The only real stinker in the movie.

Spindle: “Hallelujah” was not the right song for that scene, but that's the only place they went wrong with the music. Also, I found it ironic that Jackson (my son) was hiding his eyes during that scene.

Jon Quixote: I had the opposite take. Not counting the opening credits, I liked “Hallelujah” in that scene (I liked everything about that scene) and was unimpressed by most of the other music.

I kinda liked “99 Luftballoons”, but nothing really happened when they used it. I think I liked the idea of the movie being scored with cheesy 80's pop.

Even “Unforgettable”... well, I liked it like I liked “Hallelujah”. I think stylistically it worked very well (as opposed to the others I mentioned).

But “Sounds of Silence”, “All Along The Watchtower”, I dunno. Maybe I didn't get it. It was nice, but didn't really seem particularly inspired or on point. It just seemed big.

Doug: The use of “All Along The Watchtower” is straight out of the comic. The issue that scene comes from is titled "Two Riders Were Approaching" and the ending quote of the issue are those lyrics. I thought Snyder nailed that scene.

Jon Quixote: Maybe the whole thing could have been scored with tracks entirely from 1985. Like when the Comedian's TV flashed on MTV before the guy broke in. You could have had “Can't Fight This Feeling”. “Alive and Kicking” instead of “All Along The Watchtower”.

“Careless Whisper” or “Heaven” during the “Hallelujah” scene.

Spindle: Never mind. “Hallelujah” was fine. (Laughs)

Tim: I think the music was mostly rather good. Even “Hallelujah” could have been fine; it just went on a bit long.
The all-from-1985 thing is an interesting idea, but one of those things that I suspect film geeks would have loved, and everyone else would have wondered why were were getting all this electro-pop. I think it was a better idea to go for the timeless pieces.

I'm very glad they *didn't* go for a kewl set of modern bands.



Matt: I didn't care for some of the music choices as well.

Ye Olde Editor: Matt thinks that Queen’s soundtrack to ‘Flash Gordon’ is the greatest soundtrack ever, so his opinion is highly suspect. But we still love him.

Mark: I've been thinking about "Hallelujah”. When I first saw the movie, it didn't bother me. I thought it was silly and added some comedy at a good spot. Now, I like it even better after listening to the words, about King David, The Battle King and his adultery and all that. Good choice. Perhaps it does make the scene more humorous than it was in the book, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Doug: I still think the “Hallelujah” scene was terrible. People were laughing in the theater, and I just didn’t think it was the right tone for the scene. Maybe that's what Snyder was going for, but I would have rather had the scene get more into the freakiness of them getting aroused by the action and the costumes. It should have been more uncomfortable, not funny.

Dan: I think it was supposed to be funny. Yeah, there's the freak factor of the action/costumes getting them aroused, but it's the "I can get it up! Hallelujah" silliness too.

The General: I also agree that I felt there was a bit of humor intended in the “Hallelujah” scene.

Actually, in a lot of regards, I thought the music was one of the weaker parts of the movie. I mean, a lot of the music used just seemed too, umm, obvious. Pretty much all the songs used were "big hits"... music we've seen in probably 100 movies before. I mean, half the soundtrack is probably also on the Forrest Gump soundtrack too. Some of the songs worked within the context to the scene, but I think I wish they'd dug a little deeper and picked music a little more unique.

One of the things that I did actually appreciate was the score at some points. There were one or two points where I was sort of like "what is this Vangelis-sounding music they are playing?" But, then I realized that it really reminded me of the score to Blade Runner... an ‘80s movie with a striking vision of the future. And, after that really enjoyed it.

Jon Quixote: Sex is funny. And that scene was supposed to be funny. I mean, freaky, erotic, but funny. Even in the comic, the whole thing is punctuated with the flamethrower going off.

I just loved that whole scene. But unlike Dan and Liana, I love the Nite Owl II/Silk Spectre II stuff to begin with. I think it's the whole heartbeat of the story. I never really bought the whole Dr. Manhattan "Oh. DNA. You're a miracle." stuff too greatly. But Dreiberg cringing when he's in the dark with Laurie and she starts talking about Jon... that seemed to me to be the most real of anything in the book.

The General: I agree with Jon; while I like Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach, I agree that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are the heart of the story. To me, most of the "man on the street" characters never really held any emotional weight, so while they show what the average person might be thinking and saying, its Nite Owl and Silk Spectre who are actually the ones you relate to.


Doug: And I'm the exact opposite on everything you just said.

The General: I just don't see how you can put any emotional weight behind the various man on the street characters, with the possible exception of Rorschach’s psychiatrist. He's really the only character I feel you get inside his head on an emotional level.

His wife is a sketch of a character at best, coming off as just shrill and sexually fickle.

The newspaper stand owner maybe has a little emotional weight to him, but is mainly a mechanism for reading headlines and helping play up the paranoia about nuclear war. The kid hardly speaks beyond grouching about his comic book.

The lesbian couple might be interesting, except I feel Moore's done that character too many times in too many of his books, and now it just seems oddly fetishistic on his behalf.

The various knot-top punks are cartoons. And the cops really only serve to move the murder storyline forward, there's no real personality there beyond "typical detective."

See, I think they all do a good job of fleshing out and making the world seem complex and lived in... but there's very little actual emotional meat there.

Jon Quixote: I actually like the lesbian, and really feel something when she starts crying, but other than that I'd agree.

But I think the Nite Owl/Spectre stuff serves a completely different purpose intentionally, that the "men on the street" could never fill no matter how well they were drawn. Because they're not really part of the plot or the central universe of the comic. They're not superheroes. Watchmen needed some superheroes that were only kinda fucked up.


Doug: I do agree with Jon's last statement. But I also think Watchmen needed to show the impact of "playing God" on the population at large, which is why I think the newsstand characters are important.

Spindle: Nite Owl and Silk Spectre are the heroes that are easiest for me to relate to because they have some very human issues. So they're really only as screwed up as any average person is. I really liked the way Nite Owl was acted too, very down to earth, very human.

My favorite exchange was between Nite Owl and The Comedian, because I feel like it really resonates right now, sort of gave me the chills:

Nite Owl: “What's happened to America? What's happened to the American dream?”

The Comedian: “It came true. You're lookin' at it.”



John's favorite quote (he actually giggled and gets a kick out of it every time it's mentioned):

Rorschach: “None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me.”


Jon Quixote: It's probably the line I remember most from the entire book, although as I was rereading Watchmen over the last few days (with the movie in the middle), I was surprised to note that it's not actually "said" by Rorschach on panel. It's the shrink quoting him later.



The General: When I recently reread Watchmen, I remember thinking to myself: This line is going to be in the movie, and it's going to be great.

And it is and was.

Jon Quixote: "Ain't had this much fun since Woodward & Bernstein!"

As over the top as that was, I liked the way Right-Wing paranoia seeped through into all the characters, just in varying degrees. For me the most telling scene was when Dreiberg is talking about hating Nixon and then says "But hey, it was him or the Commies, right?" Just the sort of off-the-cuff comment that said a lot about what was going on inside his head. Yeah, Comedian and Rorschach are over the top right-wing, but even our schlumpy introspective everyman hero still has a "better dead than red" template. That says more about the inherent political brutality of superheroes than an hour of Comedian shooting protestors.



Doug: So, it seems like our general consensus on the film is "Enjoyed it, Snyder didn't fuck it up, admirable adaptation".
There were some other big-name directors attached to this project over the years. Terry Gilliam (Brazil, 12 Monkeys) tried to make it twice. Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream) and Paul Greengrass (the last two Bourne movies) also took shots.

What do you think their films would have been like? The first two directors above are definitely what I would call "visionary" directors. I think they would have made better films but not been nearly as faithful to the material. I don't really have a strong enough feel for Greengrass's work, but I remember hearing the script he was attached to took a LOT of liberties with the source material.


Jon Quixote: I think one of the reasons Watchmen: the movie is so much lesser than its source is that Watchmen: the graphic novel is so audacious and brilliant on so many levels - it's not just the content, it's the delivery. The mirror imaging of the panels. The metafictional commentary on comic book history.

The movie simply struggles to recreate the Watchmen storyline and political analogy, abandoning all else. That's why it could never be as good or as brilliant or as audacious. Its audacity is in its uncompromising desire to pack as much of the plot and adult content into a major movie as possible. But it's not really metatexutal about its own medium (the only thing I could think of there is the "Ride of the Valkyries" scene with Manhattan in Vietnam). It's not visionary in its approach to structure or storytelling (at least, not that I could discern).


Maybe, just maybe, a guy like Gilliam could adapt not just the plot of Watchmen to the screen but its daring and innovation. The movie could become about superhero MOVIES the same way the comic is about superhero COMICS.

But almost certainly it wouldn't work. It's just not really appropriate.

Yassir: I completely agree with Herr Quixote.

Watchmen the comic utilized its medium unlike any other superhero comic; the film was never going to do that.

Tim: I think Gilliam would have done something interesting with the material, but I don't think he would have been anywhere near as faithful. So it's a question of whether you want something faithful to the spirit of the book, or the material therein.

On the whole having seen it I'm mostly happy that it went a faithful-to-the-material route. It gets a bit of the spirit, and doesn't alienate people who loved the book by tacking close to it. I think it's basically right that the movie attempts to reflect the book's glory.

The more I think about it though, the more I think that the best way to bring it to screen really would have been a 12-part huge budget HBO style mini-series. Still, we got what we got, and I'm willing to take and enjoy that, flaws notwithstanding.

Mark: If Terry Gilliam had made it, there would have been a lot more pipes that didn't go to anything in the Owl Cave (and in all the other sets too)!

Devin: Aronofsky would have been an interesting version to see. I think he'd work more to recreate the feel than the actual visual look. His camera would probably not have been a comic panel come to life, but instead convey the same ideas that the panels were supposed to. But that's all in "What If..." Land.

Ye Olde Editor:And now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room…the big, blue elephant. We’ve already touched on it (stop giggling, Dan!) a couple of times, but…what was everybody’s reaction to Dr. Manhattan’s lack of modesty?

Spindle: Seriously. There's not that much penis. It's like four scenes where it's front and center, not that big a deal. Or maybe I'm just unaffected by it because I've had so much figure drawing?

Or because Harvey Keitel has desensitized me to the full frontal penis in movies?

Doug: Or because it's a CGI penis instead of a real penis?

Seriously...do you think that the fact that it was a special effect made it a little more "acceptable"?

The General: In an odd way, I think it does make a difference to a lot of people. And, I think the fact that the character is some otherworldly, glowing blue guy makes a difference too. If you think about it, if there was a move where just a standard, non-Harvey Keitel male spent the whole movie walking around naked, we probably would have heard a lot more gossip and fuss about it.

Personally, I honestly don't see the big deal, I just like mentioning it because its fun to type "glowing blue penis." I mean, how often does life give you the opportunity to throw that into the middle of a conversation? Gotta grab that glowing blue penis and run with it!

Doug: Plus, the penis was never sexual, in any way. Did we see the penis during the "multiple Manhattans" bedroom scene? I don't think so, although we saw it right after Laurie got out of bed and found Jon working in the lab at the same time. But, again, not in a sexual context.

By the way, it just dawned on me that all of this time, we could have been talking about "Jon's blue penis". I guess it really IS cold up there in Canada.

Jon Quixote: Sure didn't look like Dr. Manhattan was all that cold!



And with that blast from the Great White North, we will close the curtain on A Week of Watching the Watchmen. Maybe one day soon Devin will bless us with his "In Defense of the Squid" argument, but until then, that's it for our Watchmen discussion. Thanks for joining us! We hope you enjoyed reading it as much as we enjoyed gabbing about it.




Read more!

A Week of Watching THE WATCHMEN! Day Four

by Doug Smith

Welcome back! This is day four of our week of watching the Watchmen! Today, you can grab the grappling hook and pass the popcorn, because we’re going to get into the head of the character who emerged as the most popular of the Watchmen…the vigilante known as Rorschach!

It can be dark and scary inside Rorschach's head. Do you dare to go there? If so, strap on those SPOILER WARNINGS! Here we go!


Let’s lead off today’s discussion with one of our U.K. members; take it away Yassir!

Yassir: Although I think Rorschach was hella cool in the film do you think they missed the tragic nature of the character?

The General: How so? I do feel like they messed up his defining flashback scene, but other than that, I feel his character was pretty true to the comic's version.

Jon Quixote: Yup. I even thought some of their choices played up his human and tragic elements more so than the book did - the scene where he tells Dan he's a good friend and appreciates how he puts up with him, as well as going for sadness instead of anger in his "Do It!" scene.

But, going back to our previous conversation about the violence in the movie, and Tyler's comment about Rorschach's flashback scene - I think I know what Snyder was going for (with the amped-up violence in the Nite Owl/Silk Spectre scenes); "real world" superheroes would have to be pretty brutal if they wanted to last. But there should be a difference between Nite Owl's approach to justice and Rorschach's. Toning down the latter's (child killer scene) and amping up the former's really blurred that distinction, perhaps entirely.

Yassir: You think that scene (saying to Dreiberg that he values his friendship) worked better in the film? It was more of an open question than what I felt. I think the film played up the cool aspect but that's not a bad thing, really.

Betsy: The scene in which Rorschach tells Nite Owl that he knows he is a hard person to be friends with is one of my favorites in both the book and the movie. It showed that Rorschach, despite his incredible awkwardness, has some degree of self-awareness.



Jon Quixote: It seemed more prominent. Also, Movie Rorschach would make some choices that weren't as I interpreted them in the comic - I read them as more aloof. Like in that scene. Another example is when he's set up: "No, No, No No!" I read it like "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!" but it was played with more desperation than deprecation.

The General: Yeah, I definitely agree with Jon about the "No! No! No!" scene. That was very self-abusive in a way. Like the nerdy kid who just realized he'd done something dumb in front of the cool kids.

Tim: This is actually not a bad way at all of looking at the character. Given the history we know - son of a whore, fostered, bullied - the adoption of Rorschach as an identity in the first place would have a lot to do with acceptance etc.

I actually think the film added a little bit of depth to the character for me. Not in making-stuff-up way, but its interpretation of him making me think again.

The General: Yeah, Rorschach actually reminds me of a lot of the more extreme fanboys we've stumbled across on message boards, where you get this odd mix of wanting to be accepted and even sort of fawned over, but also being judgmental and unable to keep themselves from saying and doing things to anger and offend people.

Tim: Yes. An interesting analogy there. I think this is actually one of the interesting things about the film as a whole. It's almost as though it really is an individual's interpretation of the source material, so in many ways it's like having a conversation with someone else about the book. What they saw something as, how you read it. Comparing points of view.



Doug: I'm no expert on Ayn Rand, but isn't her view on the world, that everything is black or white, with no gray, very much the same as Rorschachs’? "No compromise, even in the face of Armageddon." I see a lot of people on message boards with that mentality.

Also, Rorschach is usually noted as the most popular character (by far) with comic book fans. Methinks it’s because so many of us can identify with him in certain ways.

The General: Yeah, well, I was referring more to generic examples of "online fanboys" than anything. And, while Ayn Rand and Objectivism (and Rorschach by default) are focused on good and bad, black and white worldviews, I think I was talking more about the psychology behind someone who would embrace that sort of view. And, how, in a way it is a defensive mechanism used to order a life that otherwise seems unordered.

Sure, Rorschach is this objectivist character, but what I thought the movie did a good job of emphasizing is that behind that is a very battered and neurotic person (the type of person how would berate himself if he was surprised, and the type of person who actually secretly wants to be friends with Nite Owl)...and that ultimately, hiding behind the extreme black and white world view was just a way to defend himself against and make order of the word he lived in.

Yassir: Agreed. But the thing is, me personally, I got all that from the comic.

I think it was cool in the comic when he didn't have his mask on he didn't have his 'voice'. They didn't do that in the film, which admittedly, would probably come across as weird.

Mark: I got that from the comics too. I was eagerly waiting for the "Do it!" scene in the movie, because that was always my favorite scene in the book. It really defined Rorschach clearly for me. I was pleased they filmed it pretty closely to the way I read it.


Funny that Jon brought up the "No no no" scene, because that was the one that stood out for me way more in the movie than it did in several reads of the book.

The General: Then you (Yassir) are a better comic reader than I am. Personally, I got bits and pieces of that through his "origin" issue, and through little character moments. But, I don't think that the character crystallized the same way for me until I saw it in "real life."

But, part of that might be that Gibbon's art was never really that expressive to me. And, another part of it might have been that while I like Moore's writing in terms of ideas, I sometimes find his dialogue a little cold.



Yassir: I don't think I'm a better comic reader than you, I'm just better than you, full stop.

Joking aside, I'm not sure how recently you read the comic (I read half before watching the film and half after) and I got all of what you said about the character from the comic. His reaching out for friendship was loud and clear in the comic, and his neurosis was pretty obvious to me. I mean the guy was meticulous to the point of neurotic, he was paranoid, he was capable of extreme violence and his attempts at empathy were clumsy.

The General: See, I reread the comic in the week leading up to watching the movie, and still only got about half that picture. All the things you mention in your last sentence ("...meticulous to the point of neurotic, he was paranoid, he was capable of extreme violence and his attempts at empathy were clumsy...") I got, but the last piece of the puzzle was still missing for me. I think, in the comic, I sort of breezed over the scene with him and Dreiberg where he sort of apologizes for his behavior, so I never really got this sense that he desired respect from the superheroes (even though he would claim he didn't). And it was only when that final shoe dropped that he came together as a character and I realized "he's every anti-social fanboy on the internet I've ever encountered." (I'm not saying it wasn't all there in the book, especially since you obviously got it all from the book. Just that I didn't see it.)



Mark: Another thing I was thinking about Rorschach. In the movie, his alter ego, carrying the "The End is Near" sign, is pretty much just a cover for Rorschach's undercover activities. When I read the book, I knew he was doing covert work while hiding in plain sight with the sign, but I guess I also thought that was something he might do if he wasn't a superhero too. Like, that's how he spent his weekends. So I guess the movie separated it a bit more than I had, which is probably the way it was intended. I'm about ready to break the book back out and see. I haven't even flipped through it since watching Watchmen.

Rory: Also, the guy looking towards Rorschach's journal at the end - appearance wise, he is a fanboy, too. The typical guy who would work at that magazine as an intern, and who would love Rorschach's journal.

Jon Quixote: When I was rereading Watchmen last week, I noticed that the end might be a bit of a fake-out. When the cops capture Rorschach, they also get his journal and they describe it as illegible.

The General: I guess we'll just have to wait for the sequel: Watchmen 2: Rorschach's Revenge.

Dan: The cops never get the journal. It ends up at The New Frontiersman. The first time we see it there, the fanboy type guy starts reading the first page to the editor, who says "Who is this guy, Son of Sam? Throw it in the crank pile."


We don't see it again until the end of the series when the fanboy has to go through the crank pile for stories since the world is such a happy go lucky place now.

That always left me with the feeling everything was about to be exposed because the journal does get into detail. No fake-out there at all. Unless I'm not understanding your point.

Jon Quixote: I think you may have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying the New Frontiersmen don't get it. But you're wrong to say the cops don't get it. The cops get it first - or they get a previous volume - when he's arrested. And the writing is described as "an elaborate cypher or handwriting too cramped and eccentric to be legible." And the New Frontiersmen aren't going to decode it. Unless they know what it is. Which they probably can't without decoding it.

Tim: Unless he wrote the last page or so in a non-cypher for exactly that reason?

Jon Quixote: Even if that was remotely likely under the circumstances, that's still a puzzle box that the intern is going to have to have a reason to solve. Although I guess now I see that Rorschach later says the police only found his notes. And later he says he's done his best to make things legible for his final entry.

Of course, when he mails it, he still doesn't know what the plot really is.

Tim: I think the basic point is: the plot could still be discovered. Perhaps the intern will get intrigued, or flick open to the correct page. Or perhaps he won't, but the book will still be there.

It's continues the same basic theme; nothing ever ends.

Jon Quixote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this was supposed to be the basic take away from the final scene. I think that anything beyond that is just speculation.

The General: I think Jon's theory is interesting. But, at the same time, I almost wonder if that's an inconsistency that Moore didn't catch.

Jon Quixote: I think he caught it more than I realized. Even though it says the cops found the journal and it was illegible, Rorschach later says that the cops only found his rough notes and that he tried to make the real journal (at least, the final entry) legible.

Still, while I'd agree that it's possible the plot is discovered (as opposed to definitely not or definitely yes), and that's basically the point, I'd still argue that the way it's set up makes it incredibly unlikely, foreboding end panel or not.


Ye Olde Editor: And now we’ve reached the “foreboding end” of day four. Join us tomorrow us we finally wrap up our week with the Watchmen, get our final review, discuss the musical merits of the movie, debate the heart of the film character-wise, and talk about…“the big blue one”.



Read more!